Louise Griffiths v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing concerning further particulars and whether they required amendment of the pleaded claims. The underlying claim, brought by a Digital Forensic Specialist, included complaints of victimisation and indirect sex discrimination. The tribunal decided that an application to amend was required and considered it by reference to the practical consequences and balance of injustice.

For the indirect sex discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that proposed PCPs at paragraph 4(1), (2) and (6) could be treated as re-labelling practices relating to the investigation process that had already been pleaded, and allowed those amendments. It refused the other proposed PCPs, finding that they were largely fact-specific complaints about the claimant's own treatment rather than neutral PCPs applying to complainants in equivalent circumstances, and that the claimant had not shown the practical consequence of refusing them.

For victimisation, the tribunal found that proposed detriments 8(1), (2) and (8) formed part of the narrative but were not pleaded as being consequent on the claimant's complaint of sexual assault. It treated them as new allegations, found that the claimant had not explained why they were practically important to the claim, and noted additional disclosure, witness evidence, hearing length and limitation issues before refusing the amendment.